Commission of inquiry powers upheld, but authority to recommend redress or punishment for past wrongs was struck down.
A Commission of Inquiry may be appointed to investigate a definite matter of public importance and may make ancillary findings and recommendations, but it cannot be authorised to recommend redress or punishment for past wrongs, as that function lies with a duly constituted court. The impugned notification was therefore valid except for the offending words, which were ultra vires and severable. The Act and notification also survived the Article 14 challenge because the statute laid down a sufficient policy and principle, the classification had a rational basis, and no hostile discrimination, mala fides, or excessive delegation was established.
Issues: (i) Whether the notification appointing a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 was within the scope of the Act and valid, save for the part directing recommendations for action by way of securing redress or punishment; (ii) Whether the Act and the notification were unconstitutional as offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground of hostile discrimination or excessive delegation.
Issue (i): Whether the notification appointing a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 was within the scope of the Act and valid, save for the part directing recommendations for action by way of securing redress or punishment?
Analysis: Section 3 of the Act authorises the appropriate Government to appoint a Commission to inquire into any definite matter of public importance and to specify functions ancillary to that inquiry. The scope of such a commission is not confined to future legislation alone; it may extend to inquiries into matters of public importance affecting public wellbeing. The Commission may investigate facts, record findings, and make recommendations which are incidental to the inquiry. However, recommendations for taking action by way of securing redress or punishment for past wrongs were held to be outside the permissible scope, because such redress or punishment belongs to a duly constituted court and is not ancillary to the inquiry. The offending words were severable, and the remaining notification could stand independently.
Conclusion: The notification was valid except for the words directing recommendations for action by way of securing redress or punishment, which were ultra vires and severable.
Issue (ii): Whether the Act and the notification were unconstitutional as offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground of hostile discrimination or excessive delegation?
Analysis: Article 14 permits reasonable classification and forbids only arbitrary discrimination. Section 3 of the Act was held to lay down a sufficient policy and principle for the guidance of the Government by confining appointments to definite matters of public importance. The Act therefore did not confer an uncontrolled or unguided power. On the facts, the materials before the Government, including the notification recitals and the background information, afforded a rational basis for treating the petitioners and their companies as a class by themselves. The burden of proving hostile discrimination was not discharged. The challenge based on mala fides also failed because no improper motive was established. The contention that the later notification fixing time could not cure the omission in the original notification was rejected, and no impermissible delegation of essential legislative function was made out.
Conclusion: The Act and the notification were not invalid under Article 14, and the attacks based on discrimination, mala fides, and excessive delegation failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeals against the High Court judgment failed except to the limited extent that the impugned words authorising recommendations for redress or punishment were struck down and deleted from the notification.
Ratio Decidendi: A commission of inquiry may be validly constituted to inquire into a definite matter of public importance and may make ancillary recommendations, but it cannot be authorised to recommend redress or punishment for past wrongs, and a selective executive reference will withstand Article 14 if supported by a rational basis and a permissible classification.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
